Subjective key points

[Mars icecream 57]

http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Key_points_and_General_information#Key_points
 

Key points summarize important information regarding a game. What is considered important varies from game to game, but there are some general rules to follow:

• Key points are reserved for very important points. Each article should have at most 5 points.
• The points provided should be information that regards major issues with the game (compatibility issues, critical bugs/crashes, non-functioning multiplayer, etc.), invasive DRM, availability enhancements/limitations, and any possible benefits (free game, open source, community activity, etc.)
•  As mentioned earlier, any point that could be considered subjective must have a reputable reference.

 

examples in articles (note that usernames in revisions aren't related):
http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Watch_Dogs_2&oldid=310275
http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Gears_of_War_4&oldid=313741
http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Forza_Horizon_3&oldid=309888

http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Prince_of_Persia:_The_Sands_of_Time&oldid=322326

http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Half-Life&oldid=312250

https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Viva_Pi%C3%B1ata&oldid=310797

https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Black_%26_White_2&oldid=412793

 

I think that certain subjective key points such as "a good PC port", "great performance" and "lots of options" shouldn't be added - users can make their own conclusions based on the available information. I try to remove them from articles, but some users keep reverting my edits and I won't engage in "editing wars".
There has been some quite incomprehensible ones such as "Doesn't suffer the issues of previous Ubisoft PC ports" for Watch Dogs 2 (still on the front page as the featured article information is perhaps only fetched once).

Edited January 13, 2018 by Mars icecream

[Pridit 39]

I wholeheartedly agree and I've always been a strong advocate against including subjective key points. These should purely be objective, and using adjectives in a statement such as this is seldom warranted. This is also made clear in the Sample article as you linked. The only scenario where it could be permitted is if it's backed up with reputable sources. The whole point of our articles is to provide objective, factual information so we should not be stating anything subjective without backing it up and with good reason.

 

In regards to the featured article there is a bit more leniency on this as, obviously, it's a featured article, so we need to pad the content out a bit which means including key points that aren't exactly key points by our standard. Instead, leaning more to why this particular article is being featured. That is something regular editors will not be able to manipulate, so there are not any stated rules for this particular content.

 

Removing or tweaking subjective key points, especially ones without a source, is warranted. If it results in an edit war please either discuss this with the editor in question where possible, and if that fails then raise this with us and we can take a firm stance. We have had multiple threads and discussions in the past regarding this, and our viewpoint hasn't changed.

[Mirh 103]

So.. I didn't want to answer at first, fearing the philosophical side of the thing, but whatever.

 

A point is subjective only until its definition is vague enough that anybody can frame it in every way. Make it accurate, precise and rigorous (of course first you have to work together on a common idea) and even beauty becomes a cakewalk.

is relieved he could keep wording slim

 

Said this, I think I can see 3 distinct idea that should be "tweaked":

• optimization: something I already discussed here. As of now I wouldn't even know if this is something that should be "absolute" or only "relative" to a determinate "epoch" (e.g: is quake 1 heavy these days?)
• performing/lightweight: if optimization could be conceptualized as "quality/powerreq" these would just be PowerReq. On a side note: would it even make sense to note every 2004 game like this? I like don't think so.
• solid PC version/port: I guess this depends on all of the above, plus.. Whatever general expectation (that said games should overcome) people have of PC games? For example.. When "having lots of options start to be meaningless"? And in a driving game, is wheel support really all that incredible?

 

THEN, having external reputable fair [...] websites confirming our criteria would be awesome. But if we are just using them to "pass the buck" (as if this made things any less undefined), no thank you.

[Mars icecream 57]

in a driving game, is wheel support really all that incredible?

 

Under input settings, no key point.

 

I think I can see 3 distinct idea that should be "tweaked":

 

optimization: something I already discussed here. As of now I wouldn't even know if this is something that should be "absolute" or only "relative" to a determinate "epoch" (e.g: is quake 1 heavy these days?)

performing/lightweight: if optimization could be conceptualized as "quality/powerreq" these would just be PowerReq. On a side note: would it even make sense to note every 2004 game like this? I like don't think so.

Because there are thousands of different PC configurations and even more variables, I think that performance and optimization can't be reliably rated. Perhaps link comprehensive benchmark tests in articles, that's it. If this was consolegamingwiki.com it would be a different matter entirely.

"Runs well on low-end hardware" key point is questionable, doesn't everything older than Crysis (2007), perhaps excluding F.E.A.R (2005, a "system hog" according to reviews), run on "everything"?

[Mars icecream 57]

I would almost consider removing advantage and disadvantage keypoints, as always the users can make their own conclusions. When editing in particular I spend time pondering whether should mark a key point as a positive or information. This change could reduce the amount of low-effort positive points.

[Blackbird 54]

There has been some quite incomprehensible ones such as "Doesn't suffer the issues of previous Ubisoft PC ports" for Watch Dogs 2 (still on the front page as the featured article information is perhaps only fetched once).

Glad I'm not the only one. I found it to be in poor taste, but I guess you have to satisfy people butthurt about Ubisoft. Apart from AC: Unity their PC versions are decent and have plenty of AA options.

[Mirh 103]

Glad I'm not the only one. I found it to be in poor taste, but I guess you have to satisfy people butthurt about Ubisoft. Apart from AC: Unity their PC versions are decent and have plenty of AA options.

Not like we cannot even manage to agree on whether there was an effective strike of ubisoft shit ports or not :c

If any though, I'm not sure most of people even know/care/wonder about it.

 

A good common test case for subjective-actually-not-so-subjective discussion could be my recent edit to ME2 page.

I totally see bogus might be a harsh word, but EVEN putting aside price (which we could even think as just another consequence of the main problem), it's batshit insane to sell points to buy stuff *limited* in a quantity that is not multiple of the amounts you can buy its packs.

We absolutely aren't here to criticize economy, monopoly, capitalism and all, but be it 1¢ or 100€, spending money to literally never see it go anywhere is a joke (and in my vocabulary, bogus was the best word that could sum up such a situation)

 

I would almost consider removing advantage and disadvantage keypoints, as always the users can make their own conclusions. When editing in particular I spend time pondering whether should mark a key point as a positive or information. This change could reduce the amount of low-effort positive points.

The distinction is important. Or at least this case make me think it is.

 

Trying to clumsy work backwards onto a definition then, and recalling this sharp observation.. I guess we are back to the point of "what people expect"?

In turn further leading: what is positively a surprise nowadays? Indeed, the more I think, the more I feel like we (and general public) are getting more and more pretending. Possibly even "being able to import music" is a complete given in any open-world game (or perhaps not, just making examples).

...

Modding for example is something that I could always see positive (of course to *impress* the user -that's the point in the end- you have to have a lot of stuff at stake, and that's why I guess for as much as anything BFBC2 not to completely qualify)

 

I see sociology (lol) might not be all that easy to find 0 and 1, but hey, we have forums to civilly discuss on purpose.

 

Because there are thousands of different PC configurations and even more variables, I think that performance and optimization can't be reliably rated. Perhaps link comprehensive benchmark tests in articles, that's it.

Mhh no. Because AGAIN as I was saying, if you have no damn your definition of what level of performance constitutes a shitty or optimized port.. What meaning can you give to numbers?

 

Said this, the only important variables I can think of when talking about performance are:

• CPU (that at most can be further specified into single-core or multi-core performance)
• GPU
• RAM/VRAM

Of course in an ideal world developers would have already agreed decades ago on what constitutes a "minimum" or "recommended" experience.. But we are just left with keen people doing independent testing to quantify the thing.

Or professional reliable trustworthy 3rd party websites for all they matter. And then, once you have a value and you know which hardware "produced" it you can start to "weigh" just anything (for examples see low-end thread)

But I'll repeat: first and foremost you need a standard to "calibrate words".

 

I think steam hardware survey would be A-W-E-S-O-M-E to "set our minds".

 

After having a quick look, I guess like we could have an "average not-so-lucky joe" level (2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz dual core cpu, 4GB ram, *, 1024MB vram), a "really potato" level (my laptop spec -see other thread- or an even crappier eeepc fitting it).. And then of course a "lag-even-with-titan-sli" level I guess?

 

 

*And as for the video card.. There are just too many in there to say. We don't even really care about specific models.. Generation or even better 3dmark11 result would be a way better indicator.

@Vetle can you do some parsing magic? :s

 

 

"Runs well on low-end hardware" key point is questionable, doesn't everything older than Crysis (2007), perhaps excluding F.E.A.R (2005, a "system hog" according to reviews), run on "everything"?

As I think I tried to point out multiple times, once you lower enough crysis details it's actually extremely lightweight.

If we have to talk about optimization though, this can't count though :p

 

You are more right on a problem though. Hardware evolves and goes on, while our temporally-specific judgments are fixed. And it's not like we can ask garbott to know slender details of every test and adjust them.

So, I'll drop my crazy idea:

• you benchmark or find a benchmark of a game
• you "normalize" requirements for playing, say, lowest setting or whatever "fine point" you deem valid
• we add to every game page a property like |true_cpu_req and |true_gpu_req
• we set wiki-wide specific values that when satisfied make note appear (possibly dropping them after game release date is too old of X years, or not)

But it's quite late and I guess I already talked WAY too much.

Thanks for reading.

[Mars icecream 57]

In regards to the featured article there is a bit more leniency on this as, obviously, it's a featured article, so we need to pad the content out a bit which means including key points that aren't exactly key points by our standard. Instead, leaning more to why this particular article is being featured. That is something regular editors will not be able to manipulate, so there are not any stated rules for this particular content.

 

Who adds keypoints to the featured articles? There are two spelling errors in the currently featured Wildlands article space.

[Mars icecream 57]

My edit is reverted in the Alan Wake article: https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Alan_Wake&type=revision&diff=323294&oldid=323207

 

As I said on the talk page, [[serious Sam 3: BFE]] has no keypoints even though the game has hundreds of settings in the options menu, why should [[Alan Wake]]? Are decent PC options worth a positive keypoint?

I didn't initially notice that my edit was undoed, I submitted again with an additional change.
 

[Mars icecream 57]

The same issue with Watch Dogs 2: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Watch_Dogs_2
Get the keypoint out please. Croteam games have ten times more graphics options.

[Blackbird 54]

It's shame really. Most of the time key points are really helpful if the game has some major issue that affects majority/all people or points out something nice/unique with the game, but people also use them as stealthy "reviews"

[Cruzher 0]

Regarding to this issue, should we look articles for these subjective key points and remove them, or prevent future articles from having any of them?

 

Certainly that mentioned subjective key points appear redundant and provides insufficient information... But what an appropriate key points in an article should be, in a matter of giving information?

[Antrad 37]

Key points should be useful information that doesn't fit in any other category, like shut down online serves, included map editors, etc... "Game has many settings" makes no sense, because the whole page is basically about in-game settings, you scroll down an see what is available.

[Mars icecream 57]

This may be the direction we're heading: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/User:Mars_icecream/bad_article

[Mars icecream 57]

I assume everyone agrees that "poor PC port" keypoint shouldn't be used either - I'm removing these types as well.

https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Saints_Row_2&oldid=357721